The difficulty with this is if it becomes a 'you can't touch me' rule in practice, or if it becomes used as an argument in custody cases (even if the smacking took place before the law is passed). For me as long as it is banned with an instrument, around the head or near genitalia, I think this is reasonable.

So if my child were to swear at me, I'm meant to say "Go to your room!" What's that going to do? They child will realise that all they'd get if they misbehaved was a "go to your room". If you smack the child's hand, they'll be careful. They'll know that there's a consequence to their actions.

That's funny cos the only people who seem to think that smacking children works seem to base it on their own anecdotal experiences. There have been plenty of studies which reflect that smacking is a) not a very good parenting technique for punishing and b) can cause future trauma for children and encourage cycles of violence in families.

(Original post by Slushiii)
So if my child were to swear at me, I'm meant to say "Go to your room!" What's that going to do? They child will realise that all they'd get if they misbehaved was a "go to your room". If you smack the child's hand, they'll be careful. They'll know that there's a consequence to their actions.

Oh no, a kid said a word that we've arbitrarily designated as being a "bad" word! Whatever will we do?

(Original post by anarchism101)
Oh no, a kid said a word that we've arbitrarily designated as being a "bad" word! Whatever will we do?

Seriously, that's your go-to example of a need to hit a child?

I've been hit as a child for less. Never swore at my parents or anything as a kid. Knew what would happen if i did. Smacking worked well on me and my 2 brothers. Was the only way my mum and dad could get me and my brothers to stop knocking 7 hells out of each other.

(Original post by Rinsed)
Not by any meaningful definition of horrendous.

If a quick rap on the back of the legs is horrendous, and the perpetrator is a monster, what words can you use to describe things which are actually bad?

Why do I need to have a word to descrive those things, why can't I simply be lost for words when seeing such acts? Again, just because there are far worse things in the world, doesn't mean we should just let slip actions like smacking.

"Oh,you grew despising your parents and now you take that frustration out on your own kids? Well, at least the kids still have their heads."

(Original post by itsfantanoo)
Reminder: You still haven't refuted my statement about it being discipline as opposed to behaviour. Also, I need evidence.

Provide these two things and we can continue. Or you can delude yourself into thinking you're right.

Ah, I thought you'd never ask.

Here's one, here's another one, both published in one of the most seminal peer-reviewed paediatrics journals in the world. Here's a meta-analysis reviewing results pertaining to more than 160,000 children across a variety of studies spread across the last fifty years, though you'll probably need to have an email address linked to an academic institution to read the papers in full. There are plenty more where that came from, if you feel like reviewing the literature for yourself.

By 'statement', I presume you mean this one: 'Difference is that smacking is not any old behaviour, it's a form of discipline. It's not spontaneous, it's used in specific situations.' It's not really my job to 'refute' your statement - that's not how science works; a person doesn't get to make an assertion and then demand that other people disprove it. You make a statement, you either have evidence to back it up, or you acknowledge that it's just an opinion.

Since you ask so petulantly, though, the abstract from the third article should help:

This article addresses 2 persistent issues, namely whether effect sizes for spanking are distinct from those for physical abuse, and whether effect sizes for spanking are robust to study design differences. Meta-analyses focused specifically on spanking were conducted on a total of 111 unique effect sizes representing 160,927 children. Thirteen of 17 mean effect sizes were significantly different from zero and all indicated a link between spanking and increased risk for detrimental child outcomes. Effect sizes did not substantially differ between spanking and physical abuse or by study design characteristics.

I guess it won't make sense to say one has been beaten 'like a redheaded stepchild' in scotland anymore. That is a shame. Unless caning and belting children is still legal there, in which case I suppose the saying would still make sense. Hopefully it is, because it is a great saying.

(Original post by Rinsed)
Because it makes you seem like someone with a tenuous grip on reality.

To most people, smacking is fine. Beneficial even. Emotional assertions that, actually, it is horrendous is hardly a sensible argument.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't violence against a child isn't bad enough, on a global evil scale, to constitute horrendous if your worldview. I mean this as a genuine question, if violence against children isn't horrendous on your book, what else isn't horrendous to you, when compared to atrocities like beheading? Is rape ok? Is murder by shooting ok?

No, seriously. Are these not horrendous to you? I ask because I see two options here: Either they are simply minor transgressions, when compared on a global scale, and as such need to be treated as only minor transgressions; OR, you care so much about what words someone uses to describes these acts that you focus the conversation on words rather than actions.

(Original post by Rinsed)
I wouldn't regard smacking as even a minor transgression to be honest. You're bracketing it inside 'violence' to draw a false equivalence with actual assaults, the use of force which is actually intended to harm. Smacking is explicitly intended not to harm.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to oppose smacking on various grounds, but your argument is just to asset that it's violence and all violence is evil and blah blah blah. Your argument has been predicated strongly on semantics, so I make no apology for drawing attention to your gross misuse of words.

If you smack a child and it doesn't hurt/harm them, then it has no use as a deterrant and the child won't learn anything. So, in orde for it to be useful as a deterrant, it would have to hurt/harm the child.

I'm not trying to equate all violence as evil or place smacking on the same level as beheading. The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of what else is going on in the world, it's a bad/horrendous/negative/(insert synonym).

My argument isn't predicated on semantics, use whatever words you want. Hitting a child is negative (is that word connotation-free enough for you?) and should not be done. The words I use to convey that point are of no real consequence. How about we focus on the actual topic, rather than my words?

(Original post by VinnicombeDmv)
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't violence against a child isn't bad enough, on a global evil scale, to constitute horrendous if your worldview. I mean this as a genuine question, if violence against children isn't horrendous on your book, what else isn't horrendous to you, when compared to atrocities like beheading? Is rape ok? Is murder by shooting ok?

No, seriously. Are these not horrendous to you? I ask because I see two options here: Either they are simply minor transgressions, when compared on a global scale, and as such need to be treated as only minor transgressions; OR, you care so much about what words someone uses to describes these acts that you focus the conversation on words rather than actions.

(Original post by Rinsed)
I wouldn't regard smacking as even a minor transgression to be honest. You're bracketing it inside 'violence' to draw a false equivalence with actual assaults, the use of force which is actually intended to harm. Smacking is explicitly intended not to harm.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to oppose smacking on various grounds, but your argument is just to asset that it's violence and all violence is evil and blah blah blah. Your argument has been predicated strongly on semantics, so I make no apology for drawing attention to your gross misuse of words.

But where do you draw the line? In legality Insulting or offensive words or behaviour intended to cause alarm or distress is just as much a crime as physical assault as smacking is being treat.

Smacking should not cause any physical harm however verbal punishments can be worse and can be mentally traumatic.
Bad words can last a long time in a child's mind, long long after the sting of a smack has gone. Destroying or taking away a child's beloved toy can also be very upsetting to that child and be mentally traumatic.

Basically ban smacking and it could be replaced with non-physical verbal punishments or behaviour that could be mentally traumatic to a child and mental trauma could last a life time.

(Original post by Ambitious1999)
But where do you draw the line? In legality Insulting or offensive words or behaviour intended to cause alarm or distress is just as much a crime as physical assault as smacking is being treat.

Smacking should not cause any physical harm however verbal punishments can be worse and can be mentally traumatic.
Bad words can last a long time in a child's mind, long long after the sting of a smack has gone. Destroying or taking away a child's beloved toy can also be very upsetting to that child and be mentally traumatic.

Basically ban smacking and it could be replaced with non-physical verbal punishments or behaviour that could be mentally traumatic to a child and mental trauma could last a life time.

In the same way that most people can see the difference between a slap on the back of the legs and beating a child with a blunt instrument, I think there is a fairly clear difference between, say, a strong telling off and sustained psychological abuse.

Parents need methods by which to discipline children, and kids need discipline. If we follow this 'you should never be mean to your child' logic everyone will end up with utter brats.

(Original post by VinnicombeDmv)
I don't need any perspective. Just because there are far worse beings in the world doesn't mean the lesser of the evils isn't evil. Smacking a child doesn't compare to beheading, but it is still horrendous nonetheless.

I think the most sinister issue about banning Smacking in Scotland is that they are trying to bring Scotland inline with the rest of the EU where smacking is banned in most countries.
Scotland is trying to pretend it will always be part of the EU by trying to be like the EU. Maybe they're doing it just to irritate England? We know they disrespect the will of Britain to leave the EU and are using unsavoury subversive political thoughts to oppose British values. Maybe the solution is direct control over Scotland from Westminster?